"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[Root of Jesse]

The same way I can agree with Calvin on his soteriology and part ways with him on sacramentology and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline.
The magesterium is not the Holy Spirit.
You can wholly believe their claim to the Spirit's guidance, but I accept it only in part.
Same as with me... I have that same guidance, but I am similar in my inability to follow it.

So it's pick and choose Christianity? What I think is comfortable to me, I'll just go with that.
The magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Right. But the fact of abuse being committed by individuals, even pope's, does not excuse the institution, rendering it separately unerring.
That is the cognitive dissonance I am occasionally confronted with.

The institution is responsible for the teaching, and educating priests, and spreading the gospel. Nobody says the institution is inerrant, by the way. We say the teaching is inerrant, we say the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. We say the Bishops in communion with the Pope are infallible. Lots of difference you just want to sweep together.

 

[Root of Jesse]

When ever I have come across this quote it has been from Revelation , To the people of Sardis if I remember aright, but I have failed to come across any mention of S. Peter, I might have read it wrongly or my memory is faulty? There's certainly no mention of the Pope in his pseudonym or as the bishop of Rome?

I don't know why this matters.

Christ is infallible and Ecumenical Councils, when they are accepted freely by the Church .Certainly not the Pope.

That's wrong. The Pope, as shown in Acts 15, ratifies the councils.

Jurisdiction?
According to Wikipedia Article ;",By Divine Law, the Pope has Ordinary Jurisdiction,over the entire church."It is one of the Complaints made about Trent, was that the Bishops of Northern Europe abdicated their Christ given responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome, this by refusing to vote on the Council till it had been passed
As I understand there are two ways the Bishop of Rome claims superior jurisdiction, one over territory in the 'Temporal realm of Earth'. I.E. It was the Bishop of Rome that ,'gave,' a free Ireland unto the English King, Henry II, Later he involved himself in to English Politics, as I mentioned earlier.
Secondly the Pope involved himself in the Sees of other Bishops without being asked or without permission.and broke the Canons of the Ecumenical Council. ( Niceae.) Another one called a Council at Trent and named it an Ecumenical Council, which is not his perogative. Further the bishops of the Church on the Continent abdicated their Christ given spiritual and ecclesiastical responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Roman Bishop.

The Pope has always had jurisdiction over the entire Church. Matt 16:18-20 references Isaiah 22, the Pope speaks for Christ. The pope does not need permission to intervene when necessary.

Regarding the Lady Mary?

1st, Ephesus, defined Mary as the 'Theotokos,' i.e. The Mother of God.
2nd, Council of Constantinople, 9381.) Twice referred to Mary as the,'Ever Virgin.'
2nd, Council of Ephesus, Defined Mary as being Spotless and Immaculate.

Again we have nothing to say about an Immaculate Conception.
Infact one of our scholars, Bishop Field referred to the latter council as being of ,manners, considering it crude and unpleasant to discuss the Lady Mary in such terms. (Field. Google Books. )

 

[Root of Jesse]

No Protestant I know - teaches the Trinity "because the Catholic Church says it is true ... well then we believe it" instead of from the Bible "alone".

There's no Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible.

Same for the "Rock" the one foundation of the church - comes from the Bible not the RCC for Protestants.

 

[BobRyan]

There's no Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible.

Do you "really" think that each time we present the subject of the Godhead to nonChristians we say "Well we believe in the Trinity (one God in three persons - the triune Godhead) but there is nothing in the Bible to tell us that this is actually right. To find that we have to ask Catholics if this doctrine is correct. And of course we did ask some Catholics and they confirmed for us that this is correct doctrine"??? Please be serious - I don't think you or anyone here believes that this is what we are doing in our Protestant Bible study meetings on the subject of this doctrine.

A great example of this is when we study with Jehovah's Witnesses who love to claim all day long that we can only have gotten this doctrine from Catholics -- and we point out to them all day long that it is right there in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you "really" think that each time we present the subject of the Godhead to nonChristians we say "Well we believe in the Trinity (one God in three persons - the triune Godhead) but there is nothing in the Bible to tell us that this is actually right. To find that we have to ask Catholics if this doctrine is correct. And of course we did ask some Catholics and they confirmed for us that this is correct doctrine"??? Please be serious - I don't think you or anyone here believes that this is what we are doing in our Protestant Bible study meetings on the subject of this doctrine.

A great example of this is when we study with Jehovah's Witnesses who love to claim all day long that we can only have gotten this doctrine from Catholics -- and we point out to them all day long that it is right there in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, do you know what a doctrine is? Just because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all in the Bible from the beginning doesn't mean the doctrine is there. Besides, if it's so clear cut, why do we have all these One-ness folks?

 

[Rick Otto]

Do you "really" think that each time we present the subject of the Godhead to nonChristians we say "Well we believe in the Trinity (one God in three persons - the triune Godhead) but there is nothing in the Bible to tell us that this is actually right. To find that we have to ask Catholics if this doctrine is correct. And of course we did ask some Catholics and they confirmed for us that this is correct doctrine"??? Please be serious - I don't think you or anyone here believes that this is what we are doing in our Protestant Bible study meetings on the subject of this doctrine.

A great example of this is when we study with Jehovah's Witnesses who love to claim all day long that we can only have gotten this doctrine from Catholics -- and we point out to them all day long that it is right there in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

Tertulian provided the logic, but got labeled heretic, later.

 

[Rick Otto]

The institution is responsible for the teaching, and educating priests, and spreading the gospel. Nobody says the institution is inerrant, by the way. We say the teaching is inerrant, we say the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. We say the Bishops in communion with the Pope are infallible. Lots of difference you just want to sweep together.

That just isn't true.
Millions say the church is inerrant lest the gates of hell prevail.
Denial of inquisition brutality is achieved by blaming the state.
It goes on and on.
And since actions teach louder than catechism, the abuse scandals teach error.
Lots of difference you just want to sweep under the rug.

 

[Open Heart]

This chap is a Romanist!

You mean, he is a Catholic.

 

[Standing Up]

So it's pick and choose Christianity? What I think is comfortable to me, I'll just go with that.
The magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Pick and choose Tradition you mean. Remember EO and RC have different (T)traditions. Aren't they guided by the Holy Spirit too?

 

[Open Heart]

A great example of this is when we study with Jehovah's Witnesses who love to claim all day long that we can only have gotten this doctrine from Catholics -- and we point out to them all day long that it is right there in the Bible.

Bob, it isn't all that clear in the Bible. It is one of many possible interpretations -- that's why you get heretics, heretics who base their beliefs on scripture as well. In order to get the correct interpretation of the Bible, you need the authority of the Church--the spirit led Church. Bible only just doesn't do it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Pick and choose Tradition you mean. Remember EO and RC have different (T)traditions. Aren't they guided by the Holy Spirit too?

Shhhhhhhh!

 

[laternonjuror]

I don't know why this matters.
That's wrong. The Pope, as shown in Acts 15, ratifies the councils.
The Pope has always had jurisdiction over the entire Church. Matt 16:18-20 references Isaiah 22, the Pope speaks for Christ. The pope does not need permission to intervene when necessary .

That's wrong. The Pope, as shown in Acts 15, ratifies the councils.

On the whole your post above, to say the least, is not acceptable as part of a discussion, I would say it is rubbish, but it might offend the chap in charge?
Ratifie? To confirm, give acceptance to,!! That the whole Church ratifies the Jerusalem Council through its Bishops in synods would not surprise me, that the pope does would be common place as the Bishop of Rome, along with all his clergy!

The pope does not need permission to intervene?
I bet Pope Honorius wished he had remembered that?
Especially when the Roman Hierarchy agreed to his anathema!

 

[Open Heart]

Ratifie? To confirm, give acceptance to,!! That the whole Church ratifies the Jerusalem Council through its Bishops in synods would not surprise me, that the pope does would be common place as the Bishop of Rome, along with all his clergy!

Peter plays the MAJOR role in the council of Jerusalem, and then James sums it up as the host of the conference. It is very obvious that Peter is in charge, although many speak.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That just isn't true.
Millions say the church is inerrant lest the gates of hell prevail.

This refers to church teaching. Most everyone knows the Church made mistakes.

Denial of inquisition brutality is achieved by blaming the state.
It goes on and on.

While there was brutality, the amount of claimed brutality was negligible. Besides which, you're taking a 400 year period in a small portion of the world, one which actually made the model for the judicial system of the Western World, and blowing it out of proportion. Nobody (few) denies the Inquisition, but there are many things the Inquisition wasn't.

And since actions teach louder than catechism, the abuse scandals teach error.
Lots of difference you just want to sweep under the rug.

And again, you take a pretty isolated thing that took place, for the most part, up to about 30 years ago, from a very small number of priests, and blow it out of proportion. Nobody denies what a few priests did, or what a few bishops did. But it's not like the Church didn't try to do something about it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Pick and choose Tradition you mean. Remember EO and RC have different (T)traditions. Aren't they guided by the Holy Spirit too?

I believe that the Traditions of the EO and RC are more alike than not. I don't know if their Traditions are guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the whole your post above, to say the least, is not acceptable as part of a discussion, I would say it is rubbish, but it might offend the chap in charge?
Ratifie? To confirm, give acceptance to,!! That the whole Church ratifies the Jerusalem Council through its Bishops in synods would not surprise me, that the pope does would be common place as the Bishop of Rome, along with all his clergy!

The pope does not need permission to intervene?
I bet Pope Honorius wished he had remembered that?
Especially when the Roman Hierarchy agreed to his anathema!

Pope Clement intervened in Corinth, don't know that he had 'permission'. They sought his advice, as they did Paul.

 

[Standing Up]

Pope Clement intervened in Corinth, don't know that he had 'permission'. They sought his advice, as they did Paul.

As did the Philippians to Polycarp.

These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.iii.html

What's the point?

 

[Standing Up]

Peter plays the MAJOR role in the council of Jerusalem, and then James sums it up as the host of the conference. It is very obvious that Peter is in charge, although many speak.

Keep in mind the context of the Jerusalem Council. It was James who sent men to "spy on the liberty". Peter drew back and refused to maintain, as he said once to Cornelius, God is no respecter of persons. It was Paul who stood firm in the truth of the Gospel (Good News).

Peter was not in charge. It was James that had to be dealt with, less the grace of God (the NT) became of no avail. James sent the men. It was James that changed his mind and changing, Peter perhaps did too.

PS. This was James the Just. Supposed brother after the flesh of Christ (same mother, different father). James was a powerful figure in the world of men, much more so than Peter.

 

[Open Heart]

PS. This was James the Just. Supposed brother after the flesh of Christ (same mother, different father). James was a powerful figure in the world of men, much more so than Peter.

I disagree. It's true that as bishop of the church at Jerusalem he was very powerful, just not as powerful as Peter. At the Council of Jerusalem, It is Peter who brings forth the Council's choice--Peter speaks and the decision is made. James, as the host, merely accepts it on behalf of the council and takes care of the formal business of the letter.